CIV/APN/318/88
CIV/APN/213/88
CIV/APN/327/88
CIV/APN/331/88
CIV/APN/313/88
CIV/APN/312/88
CIV/APN/329/88
CIV/APN/298/88
CIV/APN/272/88
CIV/APN/270/88
CIV/APN/324/88
CIV/APN/210/83
CIV/T/614/88
CIV/T/583/88
CIV/T/680/88
CIV/T/631/88
CIV/T/512/88
CIV/T/628/88
CIV/T/236/87
CIV/T/569/88
CIV/T/400/88
IN THE HIGH COURT OF LESOTHO
In the matter of :
MOHLEREPE VS MOHLEREPE
'MUSA VS TEBA & ANOTHER
MOHLABANE VS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & OTHERS
LEKATSA VS BERENG & ANOTHER
MOLISE VS MOLISE & ANOTHER
SELLO t/a LESOTHO FUNERAL SERVICES VS QUTHING
DISTRICT POULTRY CO-OP-SOCIETY
LEPELESANA VS ZONDO & ANOTHER
LIKOTSI & 5 OTHERS VS 'NAME & ANOTHER
DOLO VS LELIMO
MOAKI VS MOAKI
TJABANE. VS TJABANE
FAKU VS METHODIST CHURCH S.A
WONDER FLOORING (PTY) LTD VS DISCOUNT STORES
PETER'S FLORIST (PTY) LTD VS JONGERILLS
LESOTHO BANK VS MOERANE
SHELTER DEV. CONSTRUCTION VS BOCHABELA NU-BUILD
CASTROL SA. (PTY) LTD VS CARRIMS MOTORS
MAKHETHA VS RAMAHLELE & ANOTHER
SOFE VS OFFICER COMMANDING POLICE
(BUTHA-BUTHE)
TLEBERE VS LITSIBA & 4 OTHES LEMAO VS TSEPE & 4 OTHERS
JUDGMENT
Delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice.M.L. Lehohla on the 11th day of November. 1988.
The above list constitutes the aggregate of all Motion Roll cases which were set down for hearing today
2
i.e. Friday 11th November, 1988.
Regrettably none of them was proceeded with because all of them, with the exception of two which could not also proceed because of understampage, bore revenue stamps which were not defaced contrary to provisions of Stamps Duties Order No, 5 of 1972 section 11(i) which reads
"Where duty on an instrument is denoted by means of adhesive stamps and the stamps, are affixed to the instrument at any time
before the expiry of the period ' allowed ....... the stamps shall before the end of that period be defaced - (a) ........by the Public Officer concerned or by the person liable under this Order to stamp the instrument""
Section 11(d) (6) provides :-
"A person required or empowered by this Order to deface an adhesive stamp shall deface it by ........... impressing in ink on ...... the stamp ........ with the true date of defacement in such manner as effectually and permanently to render it incapable of being used for stamping any other instrument."
Section 13 provides
"......... no instrument which is required to be stamped........ shall be made available for any purpose whatever unless it is duly stamped, and in particular shall not be produced or be made available in any Court of law............"
Section 14(1) provides
"A public officer shall take cognizance of the requirements of this Order in respect of the stamping of an instrument which may come before him in his official capacity, and no instrument, which is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, may be issued, received lodged, filed, enrolled or registered by a public officer unless it is duly stamped".
See also section 14(2).
Section 28.relates to offences relating to stamping or defacement of stamps and to evasion of duty and imposes
3
a fine of M100.00 on conviction of the offence referred to above.
See also sections 32(4) and 33(1) and (2)
I have underlined the salient aspects of the above provisions as I maintain in respect of the High Court the public officer mentioned in these provisions is the Registrar, and the Assistant Registrars of this Court.
I undertook to treat the cases listed for today's motion roll as not properly before me on account of the breach of the various provisions of the Stamp Duties Order in particular those relating to the requirement for the stamps to be defaced. See section 14(1) read with 11(i) above.
The Court fees payable in the form of revenue stamps are set out in the Second Schedule of the 1980 High Court Rules read with Legal Notice 12/1981. It behoves the Registrar and his staff to acquaint themselves with their contents. The purpose of defacing the revenue stamps has been stated in this Order. Hence it is obvious that in preventing possible re-use of stamps which have not been defaced the collector of revenue safeguards himself against loss of revenue, which may entail corresponding increase in general taxation.
I have in the past repeatedly warned against failure to deface the stamps. It is regrettable that I have had to take this drastic but necessary step to ensure compliance with provisions of this Order. It is regrettable that innocent parties i.e. litigants on either side of each of the cases above have had to bear the inconvenience of having their cases not dealt with for no fault of theirs.
If it may serve as some measure of consolation to the parties, I have given stern warning that should this sort of remissness persist with the result that parties' matters are not proceeded with on the grounds that such matters are not properly before Court because of the Registrar's or Assistant Registrar's fault he will have
4
to say why wasted costs should not be awarded against him if he is the one who has prepared the roll and placed the particular files before the Judge notwithstanding non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the above Order. With respect to this sad episode it may be worth noting that under no circumstances could it be said the presenting of files containing stamps which have not been defaced before Court was an act of pardonable omission or mistake because when compiling documents due to be placed before Court it must have been glaringly obvious to that Registrar that the stamps affixed thereto were not defaced. As he is the final authority charged with the responsibility of placing files before court; and of checking before doing so that everything is in order he cannot be heard to pass the buck to anybody else.
I have thus, with respect to the present list suspended giving an order for wasted costs to enable the Registrar and Assistant Registrars to take note of provisions of the order and the seriousness with which this Court considers this intolerable remissness as manifested in today's event.
While for practical purposes the Registrar is empowered to assign the duty to deface the stamps to any of his junior staff he is however required to see to it that his instructions ere carried out in compliance with the provisions of this Order.
Will the Registrar ensure that a copy of this judgment is delivered to the Principal Secretary Finance for purposes of alerting him to the necessaity on his part to observe provisions of this order with particular emphasis on sections 32 and 33.
JUDGE.
11th November, 1988.
